Sonimus Burnley 73 VS Waves Scheps-73 VS IK multimedia EQ 73

[SiliconDeath]

I have burnley, and recently demoed TR5 EQ-73. I think the IK has better interface (cause the gain and freq are separate knobs), I like its workflow better than Burnley's.

[acousticglue]

I find these posts nonsense as in if you start warm you may want transparent or vice versa. There is no correct answer

[The Noodlist]

Which one is the closest emulation, Flaws and all

2yr old thread. No doubt the OP has come a conclusion.
Give them a demo, and make your decision from that.
I would also consider trying TDR VOS SlickEQ and Acustica Navy, as well as those you mentioned. IK Equal also has various emulation options.
The EQ 81 also has more fixed frequencies.

[simon.a.billington]

There is no such thing as “most accurate” emulation, not these days. It’s on a companies best interest to make a plugin as close to the hardware they are modeling as possible.

The trouble is, these hardware units don’t sound exactly alike, that’s the nature of analogue. There all sorts of reasons for it, but how do devs make exact clones when the hardware isn’t exact and don’t sound alike.

The fact that there is this subtle variations between plugins is a good thing. It means the devs are doing their job. You can certainly say which one you prefer, but you can’t say which one is most accurate. As you can see in this forum, as that question and you get 10 different responses!! How can that be?!? It can’t be that only one is right and all the others are wrong?!? It just means people’s experiences of hardware has been different and that they are all right.

Yes this is an old thread, but it is just worth mentioning there is no “most accurate” emulation, and “best” is a matter of subjectivity. To answer that, download a demo, drop it across few mixes and ask yourself if it works “best for you”

[SiliconDeath]

I don't think the differences between different plugins is so much to do that the devs were emulating "different serial number unit" (unit A sounded different from B yada yada), but more to do with different approaches, philosophies employed, good/bad code and errors in programming. If they were all perfect and all difference was down to different hw units, there probably would be less bug fixing/patching/updates too.

I also think dev's work ethics, experience and expertise all pay huge role on what sort of product is the end result. So I definitely don't think most plugins come close to "realistic emulation" because all of this.

[simon.a.billington]

I don't think the differences between different plugins is so much to do that the devs were emulating "different serial number unit" (unit A sounded different from B yada yada), but more to do with different approaches, philosophies employed, good/bad code and errors in programming. If they were all perfect and all difference was down to different hw units, there probably would be less bug fixing/patching/updates too.

I also think dev's work ethics, experience and expertise all pay huge role on what sort of product is the end result. So I definitely don't think most plugins come close to "realistic emulation" because all of this.

Too much money and experience riding on good code bad code thing. It’s bad business sense, big companies most certainly wouldn’t be doing it.

Bug fixes are the nature of working with operating systems and daws and the ever changing state of the platform. Occasionally there are some error leaks and little human errors that get found in code, that is usually fixed as soon as they become aware of it. It’s nothing to do with quality.

If you put real world units side be side, there is a difference. You hear tales of some producers engineers auditioning one unit it against another to find out which they prefer for the job.

It’s the nature of analogue. These units DO NOT sound identical to each other. That is the truth of it. Component tolerances, batch runs of these parts, hardware history, how they were used an abused, what components were changed during maintenance, the non linear nature of tubes and other components. It’s all in there. The older a piece of gear, the more different it is likely to sound from another.

That is the truth of it, that is the science of it. It’s not speculation, it’s not conjecture. It’s easily cross referenced, you can track down this information yourself. Even the hardware developers themselves acknowledge it.

There is too much money and business reputation riding on hardware modelling these days. It’s just bad business sense to spend all that time and only make a half-assed job of it. You’d be out of a job if that were the case!! It’s in their best interest to get an emulation sounding as close as possible. The only caveat is, they can only make it sound close enough to the unit they are modeling, since the devices themselves do not sound alike.

This is the core of it.

[Uncle E]

The Universal Audio 1073 MK2 is one of the better Neve emulations but I've been able to identify it 100% of the time in blind tests against hardware. The UAD always has a bit of an edge, while the hardware always sounds smoother and more pleasant. The newer UA's, like the SSL MK2 and Helios MK2, sound more like hardware to me so I imagine the next Neve they do will be closer.

btw, I was just reading that Yamaha was using 1% (or maybe even .1% tolerances, I don't remember) in their synths from the late 70's and early 80's, when other companies from that time were using 5-10% tolerances. Apparently they hand measured every component since such tight tolerances weren't available commercially then.

[cbricius]

I've always found the Mic setting of the Scheps73 almost unusable unless you use that on a parallel distortion track. It's just too overdriven.

I think Burnley is much more musical and have more in-between gain settings to set the right saturation in the plugin. Plus it's gain compensated and it doesn't blow the audio every time you engage it.

UAD Neve 73 is somewhere in between but I think the strong point on this one is the Unison technology for tracking with Apollo devices.

Haven't tried the IK multimedia one.

[jamcat]

Since this thread was last active, Lindell Audio and NoiseAsh have both introduced Neve 1073/81 EQs. I own the Lindell Audio 80 Series and have demoed the NoiseAsh. I also have the IK Neve 1073/81 models.

Previously I had used the IK models as preamp front-ends, but I favour the Lindell 80 now, because it is a little more open sounding and gives you the full channel strip, plus TMT. The NoiseAsh models seem the most aggressive and congested of the three. Everything comes out of them overcooked.

[simon.a.billington]

Since this thread was last active, Lindell Audio and NoiseAsh have both introduced Neve 1073/81 EQs. I own the Lindell Audio 80 Series and have demoed the NoiseAsh. I also have the IK Neve 1073/81 models.

Previously I had used the IK models as preamp front-ends, but I favour the Lindell 80 now, because it is a little more open sounding and gives you the full channel strip, plus TMT. The NoiseAsh models seem the most aggressive and congested of the three. Everything comes out of them overcooked.

For quite some time I've noticed devs adding more and more saturation to their plugins as its like sugar for our ears. Alone, more saturation will make an emulation sound better, superior over others even. In context, spread across many tracks it creates a lot of build up and you start hitting upon the problems the engineers were having in the analogue days.

More isn't always better.

Thats what I like about products that emulate the discrete differences between channel strips, like Waves NLS or the TMT options in the Plugin Alliance plugins. As the variations can help alleviate the nasty harmonic build up, being able to dial it back the saturation also helps.

[Uncle E]

If I remember correctly, you can dial back the saturation of all Sonimus channels together. Universal Audio’s Studer does that and it’s a great feature. Like you said, you can dial in warmer sounds on their own, then back it off if it’s too much in the mix.

[acousticglue]

Neve? To me, who hasn't used one. there is only Like and Different. Tools. Each decision.

[jamcat]

Was that a haiku?

[MogwaiBoy]

Was that a haiku?

Old thread but Sonimus is still on top for me. The new SonEQ2 also has variable saturation that does the non-linear transformer thing whereby low frequencies have more harmonic colouration compared to higher frequencies, and even mimicks a touch of bass compression for transformer density. Highly frequency and level dependent - Sonimus clearly put in the effort. It's subtle but inches it in the hardware direction more than others.

Burnley is sublime in sound, quality, workflow and CPU. The Noiseash stuff is.. I dunno... cartoonish? But also Sonimus aren't into EXACT emulations.

I think the "no 2 units sound the same" is a little overblown when used to explain differences between plugins from different developers of the same hardware. I think the differences (ie between all Neve 1073 emulations) are more accounted by the emulation method (component modelled vs sampled etc), shortcuts taken (if any), compromises made (quality/accuracy vs CPU) etc. A good developer will also have nothing to hide when challenged on accuracy claims.

[simon.a.billington]

Was that a haiku?

Old thread but Sonimus is still on top for me. The new SonEQ2 also has variable saturation that does the non-linear transformer thing whereby low frequencies have more harmonic colouration compared to higher frequencies, and even mimicks a touch of bass compression for transformer density. Highly frequency and level dependent - Sonimus clearly put in the effort. It's subtle but inches it in the hardware direction more than others.

Burnley is sublime in sound, quality, workflow and CPU. The Noiseash stuff is.. I dunno... cartoonish? But also Sonimus aren't into EXACT emulations.

I think the "no 2 units sound the same" is a little overblown when used to explain differences between plugins from different developers of the same hardware. I think the differences (ie between all Neve 1073 emulations) are more accounted by the emulation method (component modelled vs sampled etc), shortcuts taken (if any), compromises made (quality/accuracy vs CPU) etc. A good developer will also have nothing to hide when challenged on accuracy claims.

Yeah, but no...

You only have to listen to anecdotes of engineers and hardware manufacturers who make the same claims. Of course the hardware devs try to get their units as spot on as possible, but tolerances are always there. Even just the making of the CLA strip, Chris says himself, they offered to do emulate all his channels, but instead he opted to give them his most "ideal" sounding channel out of his mixer and had them model that. So basically we have an admission that all his channel strips in his mixer sound different. Aren't they supposed to sound identical??

There's ample of evidence all over the net explaining tolerances and in fact no two devices sound alike, you just have to go looking for it. The older the unit the more noticeable the variations.

Having said that, quality vs CPU usage is also a real thing. When making a channel strip a dev would usually concede to the fact that the user will generally want/need to run many instances of it in one project. So that kind of defines your CPU budget for a plugin. The modern approach to handling this , though, has been to include an Oversampling parameter and give the choice to the user. Not everyone has caught on, but I'm pretty sure they eventually will.

Mind you, there are newer devs out there who don't have the 20 or 30 years of experience like others who have had alot longer to learn and perfect their craft. They might be inclined to make more mistakes than most. But if you like what they do, if you like the sound of it, then who cares?!? As long as it ultimately does the job its supposed to do.

People have overromanticized analog devices for way too long, put them on to pedestals and idolised them without never coming to the understanding that it has it's downside too>. More than just noise out a bit of saturation, but the fact that no two sound alike either.